Open Diff: Is the internal combustion engine on borrowed time?

On July 5, automaker Volvo Cars announced that every vehicle it launches after 2019 will be powered — in part or whole — by an electric motor. The next day, in an effort to meet ambitious pollution control targets, France proclaimed that new gasoline and diesel-powered vehicle sales would be banned by 2040, with ecology minister Nicholas Hulot calling the move a “veritable revolution.”

On July 25, Britain chimed in as well, announcing a similar ban on sales of new gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles, specifically stating that the regulation would extend to hybrid vehicles as well as those powered only by fossil fuels. The two countries aren’t alone: Beginning in 2025, all new cars sold in Norway must be electric or plug-in hybrid, the Netherlands is considering a comparable ban with the same cut-off year. Even states in Germany, home of the Autobahn, are discussing a ban on gasoline and diesel-powered new vehicles, beginning as early as 2030.

It’s easy to dismiss the moves enacted by France and Britain, as 2040 is, at this writing, still 23 years in the future. That said, one cannot mandate the implementation of technology that doesn’t yet exist, and for electric cars to become a practical solution to fossil-fuel-powered ones, a quantum-leap in battery technology must occur.

Proliferation of electric vehicles also raises a multitude of other issues. Can the existing power grid support the increased demand? Will countries need to invest in new power plants, and if so, how will that power be produced? These are questions that must be addressed, but not in this forum.

Are we staring at the sunset of the internal combustion engine? After years of talk about peak oil and declining resources, will it be environmental regulations that finally close the door on the technology that gave mobility to most of the world’s population? If fossil-fueled new cars are banned, how long before governments enact laws banning existing internal combustion vehicles, too?

Or, is it much ado about nothing, particularly if advances in battery technology (or other propulsion methods) and investments in infrastructure don’t materialize? Will we see the 2040 dates (or even the 2025 dates) pushed back as questions remain unanswered?

ferdsays:

October 24, 2017 11:42 am

Joe Polowskisays:

July 31, 2017 2:02 pm

I have lots of questions. Where will all of this electricity come from? Solar eats up land like mad and only works during daylight and when there are no clouds. Wind is only efficient in certain areas and the turbines require a lot of maintenance and have frequent catastrophic failures . Hydro, coal, and nuclear are fought by the Greens. Current Lithium batteries are very dirty and not recyclable with current technology. What about cold climates where Electric car range is cut in half? That does not mean that it takes half the electricity to recharge them. So in reality cold cuts the “mileage” in half. How will sales drop when the subsidies end. Or will the poor and lower middle class continue to subsidize the more wealthy through taxes. As for CO2 and global warming , can anyone tell me what the ideal level of CO2 on earth should be? If we don’t know that, how do we really know what to do. We inject CO2 in greenhouses and nurseries to make plants grow better. Do we need to stop doing that? Do we need to bancommercial air travel because of it’s high CO2 emissions? Intelligent answers appreciated! And please don’t tell me Elon Musk will fix it. He’s the biggest snake oil salesman since P.T. Barnum.

John C. Kovalosays:

July 31, 2017 3:00 pm

Joe, first, as per solar, it seems likely that every house will have solar roofing material in the future [which will look like roofing material and not glass panels] and your short-term driving needs, as well as the needs of the house itself, will be supplied from it.
As to the “what happens when the sun doesn’t shine?” question, that was the FIRST question asked by engineers when the first feasible solar panels came out, about forty years ago, now. They’ve been working on it ever since.
Lithium ion or similar batteries will probably be the solution and WILL be recyclable when more research is done. However, feasible fuel cell technology should also be available in a few years, which could act as a fill-in during times when solar is insufficient.
BTW this is off-topic but technology exists NOW to supply your domestic hot water needs right off the roof of your house, no matter how cold it is outside, with thermal hot water storage tanks for the night-time.
A final word on solar is POTENTIAL. The amount of sunlight striking the earth for five minutes could power the existing energy needs of the entire human race for a YEAR. People don’t realize just how much energy there is in sunlight, and how we’re just beginning to tap its potential.
Concerning wind energy, T. Boone Pickens [a Texas oilman who was/is an advocate for U.S. energy independence] once described the United States as the “Saudi Arabia of wind”. This form of energy harvesting is just now taking off, as are more ambitious solar schemes, including solar boilers that utilize molten salt instead of water to store energy during the night and keep the generators going 24/7.
As for maintenance and environmental issues: Maintenance of solar panels is now quite low compared to maintaining a conventional coal-fired power plant [11 days/yr vs 52 days/yr is the figure I’ve seen], and altho you see problems with bird impacts on turbine blades, etc. I grew up playing on the slate dump at Powhatan Point, Ohio, which was 1/8th of a square mile of open mine tailings that leached sulfur and heavy metals into the Ohio River every time it rained. So every form of energy [including oil – remember the BP disaster in the Gulf of Mexico?] has SOME drawback.
Carbon dioxide in the atmosphere: creates the well-known “greenhouse effect” that traps heat from sunlight and raises the mean temperature of the earth. Since most of the earth’s surface is covered with water, this shows up as rising sea water temperatures, which leads to melting of the polar ice caps. THE MAIN PROBLEM HERE is disruption: millions of square miles of the earth’s surface will suddenly have a different climate in a few decades – not enough for the biology of the planet to re-adapt, and then who knows WHAT will happen? Storms and weather patterns will become more violent and unpredictable, as well.
As for the current carbon dioxide level, scientists have been able to determine levels in the past and compare them to today’s and the results are SHOCKING, as shown by this NASA graph:

Joe, your comments represent a legitimate range of questioning of the current shortcomings of electric cars in particular and the coming Renewable Resource Economy in general. However, they also represent a “glass half empty” of issues which scientists and engineers of the future must address and solve. I prefer to look ahead to the “glass half full” when most of these problems are behind us and we can enjoy the unlimited energy that only the Sun can provide, and current issues and problems become moot.

Joe Polowskisays:

July 31, 2017 4:05 pm

Thanks John C. and others for some good answers to some of my questions. I have some doubts about NASA’s graph because they and NOAA have been caught massaging numbers in the past. I too thing that eventually IC engines will be replaced with something. I just don’t think forcing technology is a good way to do it. If better technology comes along the world will adapt it. As far as running out of petroleum a Geopolitical Analyst named Peter Zeihan has written a book called The Absent Superpower which among other subjects talks about technological changes in fracking in the last 10 years. That has increased reserves 10 fold. Without government subsidies! The reality is, with conservation measures and continued tech advances 500 years is probably more accurate than 25 or 50.

PHANTOM HAWKsays:

August 1, 2017 1:28 am

Nielen Standersays:

August 1, 2017 3:06 pm

Joe, I don’t think the problem is a shortage of fossil fuels. The problem is that there is too much of it buried somewhere and that releasing even a fraction of it is changing the climate.

As for “massaging the global warming numbers”, I think that most of those allegations have been refuted by now. There was a major incident a few years ago in which emails were hacked to try and prove that a British university professor and climate researcher was massaging numbers. UC Berkeley subsequently conducted a study which confirmed that the “massaged numbers” had a negligible effect on the major conclusion that humans are changing the climate. While science is always open to new discoveries that can change conclusions, the effect of human economic activities on climate has never been successfully refuted.

Johnfromstaffssays:

July 31, 2017 3:21 pm

In U.K. it’s like this, and you might get the same from your politicians.

The EU has rules about air pollution that specify quantities of pollutant per quantity of air, expressed usually as parts per million. London, which is where the politicians live, and all of our other big cities, are grossly over the limits, particularly for oxides of nitrogen. The press, who mostly inhabit London, are shouting about the number of deaths occurring earlier than expected due to this pollution, the increasing numbers of kids suffering asthma, especially when they live near main roads in cities, and the BBC, a big city dwellers club if ever one existed, and car haters to a man, are also banging on every day about the problem.

As sop to the EU and to reduce the pollution figures the government has announced its intention to decree an end to the production of all IC powered vehicles below a certain weight limit, (say 7.5 tonnes, below which we do not consider it to be a heavy goods vehicle), by 2040. All IC powered vehicles below this category must be off the roads by 2050. That’s it, that’s what they want, and the French are going down a similar thought process.

This despite the fact that the UK’s power generation infrastructure is already close to the limit as we have been closing fossil fuel power stations for some years. The motorist’s organisations here are paper tigers, there will be little and poorly executed opposition to this measure, and my view, based on nearly seventy years experience of living with British governments, is that the end of the IC powered vehicle looks very likely to happen here. I think that there may be enough votes residing within the cities to ensure this, so kiss goodbye to your exhaust system and shake hands with your new battery.

Jim Mcsays:

July 31, 2017 3:42 pm

You bring up a lot of very good points, Joe. Personally I would support nuclear energy since it is clean, renewable; and once the infrastructure is in place, it’s relatively inexpensive. But then I don’t let Chernobyl freak me out as the environmentalists do. Hydro-power is a viable option for the localities that have easy access to a large enough body of water, but this would not be a sufficient alternative for parts of the world which are essentially land-locked. As for the Lithium-ion batteries powering many of today’s electric vehicles, they are a good option for some people, but not for everyone. For those who live in a home or apartment where overnight charging is not feasible, what are we to do? As you said in your post, what do we do with these millions of batteries once they are no longer useful? Currently, the technology does not exist to recycle them. These questions and more need to be answered before we start regulating fossil-fuel powered vehicles out of existence. In short, the infrastructure needed to support these vehicles should be more developed before governments start forcing everyone to buy them. And what of people who simply cannot afford a new electric vehicle come January 1, 2040? This is to say nothing of simple personal choice, which cannot be ignored either.

John C. Kovalosays:

July 31, 2017 7:50 pm

Jim, I’m kinda freaked out by Chernobyl as my ancestral village of Berezki as well as my father’s godfather’s home village of Dzemyanki were among those abandoned after 80% of Chernobyl’s fallout landed on southeastern Belarus. All this after surviving “The Great Patriotic War” {aka WWII] that wiped out my grandmother’s village of Novo-Zakruzhie, among others. The whole place is now deserted but somebody’s farming acreage and planting orchards there, from the looks of Google earth. Ah, those resourceful Russians….

actually I left out mention of the new “mini-reactors”, that are supposedly much safer than the old monsters. Also of note are fusion reactors, but the current status of Tokomak technology won’t be yielding results for a few decades, from the looks of it.

kenVsays:

December 31, 2017 9:55 am

Jim, Chernobyl might not freak you out but Fukushima should. It’s still leaking radioactive water into the sea daily. It will take decades to contain and clean the contaminated area and billions upon billions of dollars. It only takes one accident to create a monumental disaster. There is yet to be a truly safe location to put the nuclear wastes produced from nuke plants. The Yucca mountains are not stable enough to keep the waste for thousands of years. No place is. This should freak you out–we are leaving millions of gallons of nuclear waste for future generations to deal with when cleaner and safer alternatives exist.

PHANTOM HAWKsays:

July 31, 2017 2:37 pm

Fossil fuel will not last forever. Unless the estimate has been revised, I believe the U.S. predicts 2050 as the end of the [easy to extract] fossil fuel era while the Middle East states estimate 2085 before they deplete their fossil fields….so…something must replace internal combustion…BUT WHAT?

Barring a currently unknown technological breakthrough in hydrogen, nuclear [remember the proposed atomic cars of the 60s?] or ion [SCI-FI at this time] propulsion, then electric vehicles currently seem to be the wave of the future…BUT…there will HAVE to be a quantum leap in the recharge time if one expects to travel long distances with the family conveyance. And what of commercial vehicles…how many batteries will it take to power millions of over-the-road trucks, aircraft, railroad locomotives, or ocean going ships? [I’m joking of course.]

Will the governments of the world force the majority of drivers into electric vehicles while reserving the remaining fossil fuels for the filthy rich and commercial and government/military use only?

Regarding family vehicles: how many electrics [non-hybrid…remember those have internal combustion backup] can currently claim even a 200 [+/-] mile range…maybe Tesla and…and…? And what is the [FULL] recharge time for the batteries at the end of those miles?

Daniel Strohlsays:

July 31, 2017 2:45 pm

Good points. I vote CNG. Requires infrastructure changes, but it’s renewable and can be used in existing IC engines. Also better than releasing raw methane into the atmosphere where it’s 19 times worse as a greenhouse gas than CO2.

That said, battery technology is improving all the time, and the pace of improvement is accelerating. Hopefully soon we’ll see supercapacitors/solid state batteries surpass current battery technology, which will make electric vehicles far more palatable to far more people than they are now.

Woodysays:

July 31, 2017 2:52 pm

I agree with Joe that electric cars raise many technical questions that will have to be addressed. Eventually electric cars replacing fossil fuel power cars is probably a good idea for three reasons: importing oil (I think we import about 20% of the oil we use) to produce gasoline adds to inflation as the US government prints more money to pay for it, we often import oil from countries that don’t like us, burning the gasoline adds to human medical problems & other environmental issues.
Joe rightly points out that electric cars do not presently provide all the features that fossil fuel powered cars do. They take longer to fuel up, typically have a shorter driving range between refueling, & don’t operate efficiently at cold temperatures. I expect there will be future battery advances that will improve this (e.g. Some Japanese battery companies feel that super capacitors are the answer. Some other battery companies feel that using fluorine ion battery technology instead of lithium ion technology will increase battery energy density by about a factor of three.)
Also, of course, generating & distributing electricity to refuel electric cars is a challenge (especially since large quantities of electricity are not easy to store). Generation will probably be a smorgasbord of technologies including hydro, nuclear, solar, wind, ocean waves/tides, undersea currents, etc. Electric distribution will require super cooling for long distance transmission lines, time of day metering (to encourage less vehicle charging during peak electric demand periods), home & business solar panels efficiently tied into the grid, etc.
All in all lots of challenges for the twenty first century. But these are challenges worth pursuing.

JPsays:

July 31, 2017 3:33 pm

In a word, yes. Combustion engines are indeed on borrowed time. However, I also don’t think it will impact collector cars. Collector cars represent a very small percentage of the overall car population and, generally, don’t get driven enough to matter. I think any attempts to go after collector cars will prove to be a waste of time.

Jim Mcsays:

July 31, 2017 3:56 pm

Scotty Gsays:

July 31, 2017 4:39 pm

Nobody will read this, I’m way late to the game on this one.

But, yes, its days are numbered. If Philosophy 101 class has taught us anything it taught us that the instant that the internal-combustion engine was invented its days were numbered. The instant that we were born we begin to die. Just because the sun has “come up” every morning for the last several million years doesn’t mean that it’s going to “come up” tomorrow morning. And, the list goes on and on.

It’s a broad question and I’m wondering how the responses would have changed, if at all, (probably not) if “in our lifetime” would have been added to the question? There is obviously no question that the end is near, relatively, for the internal-combustion engine, it’s not even an arguable point. In the grand scheme of humanity, its days are numbered – but those days are most likely many, many decades ahead of us. So, calm down everyone, your precious gas-burning vehicles aren’t going away anytime soon.

So, the sky isn’t falling. There is no need to pile up on EVs just yet, public stoning went out of fashion quite a while ago.

Frank Csays:

July 31, 2017 5:14 pm

Basic science tells us the IC engine will have to be eliminated or seriously restricted for no reason other than at some point in the future — whether it be 50 years or 100 years — we will run out of easily accessible fossil fuels (CNG may extend this and let us get to the 100 year point). I strongly encourage environmental issues, but even I think the British, French and Norwegians are probably somewhat unrealistic with their proposed ban dates. Challenge us as a society, yes, but to move to full electric in less than twenty years is probably unrealistic.

With 114K miles on my wife’s 2007 Prius, we have used approximately 2,500 gallons of gasoline at an average rate of 46 MPG. We were getting 49 MPG, but as the car has aged and as our driving has gone more local and less highway, the average MPG has dropped slightly over 10 years. At an average of say 20 MPG, in an average vehicle (averaging all cars and trucks together), we would have purchased some 5,700 gallons for the same 114K miles.

As a society, we have made great strides in reducing carbon usage and air pollution. I well remember the early 707 aircraft which spewed huge amounts of pollution as they took off. That changed over the years and even all the airplanes I saw on Air Force Bases over the years got cleaner as the years went on. I lived in the New York suburbs of New Jersey in the 1960s and early 1970s. The news showed us the brown/black cloud sitting over Manhattan each day. That cloud no longer exists. I was in Denver in 1979 for several months and there was what they called the brown cloud sitting at about the 12th floor level of the buildings. I was in Denver two months ago and the air was crystal clean by comparison.

I say all of that to remind people that we have made great improvements in our air by reducing our carbon footprint. To a large extent, we have done that by improving mileage and using less fossil fuels in cars and small trucks.

Should the hobby have an exemption for older cars if the IC engine was ever banned here in new cars? Of course. Do I think the IC engine will disappear in new cars in my lifetime (I’m 64)? No, I can’t imagine that we will solve the battery challenges that soon. Even if we solve the battery challenges, we have an infrastructure problem with older power plants and a distribution system that isn’t ready for that much additional charging.

I took a recent trip from New Jersey to Rhode Island and was surprised at the number of charging stations along the highways — not a lot yet, but more than a year ago. Now, if the manufacturers could just get together on one format for chargers, things would be better.

Politics, environmental concerns, and personal preferences aside, basic science tells us we need to be looking at alternatives. Those alternatives may not come to fruition for 20 or 30 or 50 years, but we need to start planning now to overcome the challenges that have not been solved yet.

starsailingsays:

July 31, 2017 6:21 pm

No problem….Bought one of those experimental Studebakers with Rumble seat, bought a used sail from boat at the marina and attached it through the roof of the car….using a politician strapped in the Rumble seat and to give a speech which gives a hot breeze to the sail …which takes me wherever I need to go! Unlimited hot air fuled by speeches while feeding the politician White Castle burgers. Turn the politician around in the seat as a …back up wind power source.
Some say it’s the journey, some say it’s the destination….I say it’s your dreams you have that take you where you are. Wherever you go…there you are. Thinking is the best way…..to travel.

Gary G.says:

July 31, 2017 7:48 pm

Jim Benjaminsonsays:

July 31, 2017 8:40 pm

Let’s see – California mandated nothing but electric car sales some years ago. We all know how that turned out. Electric cars suffer from the same problems today they did 100 years ago. High initial cost, limited range and lack of infrastructure to recharge quickly and efficiently. Batteries were their downfall in 1910 and remain so in 2017. And where does the electricity come from to recharge those batteries? Simple, just plug the cord into the wall, right???? Once again the greenies are predicting utopia when the world goes all electric. But what happens when the electricity goes out? Same thing that my young daughter discovered during Blizzard Hannah in 1997 when she plugged in the toaster only to discover the toaster, along with the lights, television and every other electrical appliance doesn’t work if there is no “juice” in the line! And lets not even think about the hazardous waste of used batteries – lead, sulfuric acid, etc. Some years back I drove a Chevy S10 pickup that had been converted to electric – 52 lead-acid batteries under the bed of the truck and a college age kid hired to extol the virtues of the vehicle. By the time I was done explaining the facts of life to him his visions of a pollution free vehicle were pretty well shattered. 2024 isn’t that far away – but unless there is some major breakthrough in technology I’m afriad this is all a pipe dream.

PHANTOM HAWKsays:

August 1, 2017 1:11 pm

I chuckled when I read the toaster comment…kids are lost when the power goes out…especially their phone or tablet. I realize this is sort of like comparing apples to oranges but I encourage my kids [my adult sons both now have some nice reference book collections] and grandkids to read books…yeah those old fashioned things with ink on paper bound between covers.

I tell the kids that you can find anything faster with computers but I’ve never had the ‘screen’ on a book go blank due to dead batteries. My youngest granddaughter recently asked me some questions regarding the birds feeding in the backyard. I advised her to look it up in our WORLD BOOK ENCYCLOPEDIA like grandpa used to do when he went to school.

My granddaughter was successful after a little instruction regarding the nuances of book research and I was surprised that she actually enjoyed using our ‘archaic’ research source. With the new school year closing in, I wouldn’t be surprised to find she is the only one in her class to have used…or even be able to identify…an encyclopedia…LOL.

Fuzzy Rebelsays:

July 31, 2017 9:22 pm

Scientists and engineers can do marvelous things when they have to. Battery technology can be developed to meet the deadlines mentioned. In the early 1960’s, President Kennedy announced a goal to reach the moon before the end of the decade. At the time he made the announcement, the technology to actually do it didn’t exist yet. In 1969 Neil Armstrong walked on the moon.

mark axensays:

July 31, 2017 9:50 pm

Necessity is the mother of invention, and the free market will likely dictate what works or not. Government mandates, especially if based on false data and speculation, cause more problems than they seek to cure.

Robert Nellersays:

August 1, 2017 8:36 am

I agree with Mark.I remember electric cars in the 70’s and in the 80’s talk of flying to work in your 2000 year flying car.Transportation will continue to exist in one form or another dictated by what is available in that market at that time.I feel there will always be some need for fossil fuel of some type and with technology advancing as swiftly as it is now the demand will be far less than predicted by some today in the future.

PHANTOM HAWKsays:

August 1, 2017 12:47 pm

Don’t forget…the U.S. is blessed with the largest [at least some of the largest] coal fields in the world…and coal may be processed into fuel as was done on a limited basis by some Axis powers during World War II.

Perhaps our present Washington administration, which is wooing coal miners, should consider encouraging this research to supplement the depleting fossil furls…or at least as one more way to prepare for the future.

The following coal note comes from the U.S. Energy Information Administration:

“Coal reserves at producing mines

Coal mining companies report to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) the amount of recoverable reserves at their U.S. coal mines that produced at least 25,000 short tons of coal (or 10,000 short tons of anthracite coal) in a year.

As of January 1, 2016, about 18.3 billion short tons of recoverable reserves were at producing mines. The amount of coal reserves at producing mines is a small portion of the total amount of coal that exists in the United States.

How much coal is there?

The amount of much coal that exists in the United States is difficult to estimate because it is buried underground.
•Total resources is EIA’s best estimate of the total amount of coal (including undiscovered coal) in the United States. Total resources are estimated to be about 3.9 trillion short tons. Total resources includes several categories of coal with various degrees of geologic assurance and data reliability.
•The Demonstrated Reserve Base (DRB) is the sum of coal in both measured and indicated resource categories of reliability. The DRB represents 100% of the in-place coal that could be mined commercially at a given time. EIA estimates that the DRB in 2015 was 477.1 billion short tons.
•Estimated recoverable reserves include only the coal that can be mined with today’s mining technology after considering accessibility constraints and recovery factors. EIA estimates that the United States has 254.9 billion short tons of recoverable coal reserves, about 53% of the DRB.”

Frank Csays:

August 6, 2017 4:57 pm

I agree there will be less demand for fossil fuels, as I said in an earlier post. Another reason for less demand affects both gasoline engines and electric cars., but I haven’t seen anyone comment on it here yet. Fewer young people are driving. Just Google “young people not driving” and you will encounter many articles from reputable media sources in the US and England showing a decline in the number of youth getting their driver’s license today. Urban historians and sociologists will tell us that young people are flocking to cities and using public transportation or services like Uber. They don’t feel the need to own a car.

starsailingsays:

August 1, 2017 1:59 pm

Great story..just a matter of time. Would be great to have to use to head up north to the cabins…No sitting in traffic to get out of the cities!
When Swedish Grandmother came over to watch us kids someties for the weekend…she would bring along a potroast container filled with her Swedish foods so we could have a taste of the “Old Country.” Pickled pigs feet, Ox nose and Tongue, Sardines..etc….We each had to eat at least a forkful of each of those poisens…or no dessert. I had a dog named Bajo. The food on my plate magically disappeared in a flash when Grandma wasn’t looking……and that dog sat under the table smiling everytime Grandma came over to our house. Distance was only about a meter and a half from plate to dog. Science…man’s best friend.

tomsays:

August 1, 2017 4:48 pm

I love cars. Have since I can remember. I have been interested in electric cars for a long time, too. I think they’d be great except they are not practical for most applications. Battery technology has come a long way in recent years. However, it is not near where it needs to be to make electric cars practical for the most part. And there’s the cost of electric cars. In the long run, I realize that the price would come down as demand grew, but I believe that the price overall would still be a great deal more that what cars cost now. And the inflated cost that they are now is a direct reflection of the government having their hands in the works. So government regulation in the automotive industry would only cost the consumer more. Much more with the drastic regulations that are going to take place in Europe in the coming years. Rather than demanding an end to the internal combustion engine, it would make more sense to encourage the development of better batteries, better electric cars and at a price that the average consumer could more better afford. Going forward, practicality should be the key to the future. Not policies, regulations or fear.

Georgesays:

August 1, 2017 6:20 pm

I’m puzzled by Joe P. calling Elon Musk a snake oil salesman when Musk has managed in a 10 year period to create a space vehicle that can take off , fly into space then return and land on its launch platform , while neither the Russian space program or NASA been able to achieve that in the last 60 years !! Granted, he was able to utilize their data and not make the same mistakes, but he’s brilliant, by any stretch of the imagination! That he’s also manufacturing electric cars that are well received by the public is also a long way from snake oil!

Carzsays:

August 1, 2017 9:07 pm

I’m frankly amazed at the interest in electric cars on this forum. The Sierra Club perhaps, Prius brothers.com or other but the pages (physical or digital) here are of combustion engines. If you think your “classic” is safe from surcharges, non re-sale value erosion, emission standards no pre-‘2000 car could pass you’re saddily mistaken. If this community is not steadfast in holding a ground for classic combustion engines who do you think will? they will not exit. Hell, some museums won’t even take them. Wake up!!!

Carzsays:

August 2, 2017 8:31 pm

I’m frankly amazed at the interest in electric cars on this forum. The Sierra Club perhaps, Prius brothers.com or other but the pages (physical or digital) here are of combustion engines. If you think your “classic” is safe from surcharges, non re-sale value erosion, emission standards no pre-‘2000 car could pass you’re saddily mistaken. If this community is not steadfast in holding a ground for classic combustion engines who do you think will? they will not exist. Hell, some museums won’t even take them. Wake up!!!

Carsten Langsays:

August 4, 2017 11:00 am

Dansays:

August 4, 2017 12:30 pm

The entire transportation sector is being electrified. Many trains are already hybrid-electric. The ports (e.g. LA-Long Beach, Houston/Galveston, Savannah, New York-New Jersey) are known as “zones of death” due to the high pollution. Many ports are electrifying the cranes that unload the ships (since it makes economic sense) as well as testing various delivery vehicles that run around the ports.

Ian from Birminghamsays:

August 4, 2017 6:28 pm

I can remember the last day that our Milkman`s Horse worked on delivering milk to our house. We all came out and fed him sugar cubes.
We were thrilled next day to see the Battery Operated Milk Float on the job.
Thats what will happen in 2050 here in the UK.
Those kids who today have no interest in cars will welcome the clean electric vehicles.

Ken Johnsonsays:

August 5, 2017 11:56 pm

if they don’t increase the range of electric vehicles, then there will be a problem. we may have to move to a car share system, where your travel farther than the limitations of your electric vehicle would have to be some sort of other transportation(rail, bus, plane) to your destination and then some kind of car share / public transportation / ride share system.
it doesn’t make a lot of sense to ban a major source of personal transportation without having some sort of backup plan in place. then again no-one has ever accused governments (ours or theirs) of making a lot of sense. i’m happy i probably won’t be around to see it happen, age and health issues promise to return me to a pile of ash.

PHANTOM HAWKsays:

August 6, 2017 10:22 am

THAT’S IT!…that’s how we take electric cars cross country. Like the pony express riders of old who rode a series of steeds to traverse the country, there will be a pool of electric cars [not owned but rented by individuals] stationed at various locations across the country.

At the start of your journey, go to a pool and pick up your ‘kilowatt charged four wheeled steed’…drive to the next station where there is a pool of charged electric cars…choose another ‘steed’ that strikes your fancy and head out on the next leg of your journey.

Frank Csays:

August 6, 2017 5:03 pm

You probably said that tongue-in-cheek, Phantom Hawk, but we may be closer to that than people realize. Many cities already have rental cars by the hour (think Zipcar) when someone needs a vehicle only for a few hours or maybe a day and wants to pick up and drop off in the middle of the city, convenient to their work or their urban living situation. With more charging stations coming on line at highway rest areas, I can see the day when some hot entrepreneur figures out how to combine an all electric fleet pre-positioned at highway charging stations across the country.

PHANTOM HAWKsays:

August 7, 2017 11:53 am

Actually Frank, it was a bit tongue-in-cheek but I was inspired by ‘Zipcar’ or whatever it’s called. Our city already uses something like ‘Zipcar’ but I’m not sure what it’s called as I HATE going downtown…the last time I was downtown was March 2017 when I rode with a friend attending the auto show]…and…yes…I do believe that sometime in the future we [or our kids/grandkids] will see something like the cross country…what shall we call it…AUTO EXPRESS?

[Hmmm…now that I REALLY think about it…does anyone have a few million ‘green backs’ lying around for a new business venture…LOL]

Frank Csays:

August 6, 2017 5:30 pm

This thread has produced some insightful, balanced answers, which I suspect is what Dan was hoping for when he posted it. I said earlier that England, France, and Norway are probably unrealistic in thinking they can convert all new cars to electric within 20 – 40 years. The issue with the possible need for additional power plants is separate from this discussion, but certainly worthy of consideration.

This may not be popular, but I will say that the evolution of the internal combustion engine is probably peaking or has already peaked and the move to another form of propulsion is simply science moving on. I would lament the end of the internal combustion engine completely and I strongly believe we need to maintain and own the existing antique and special interest cars and trucks so we can enjoy them and understand our history and society.

Toyota introduced the Prius in the US in 2000 (a few years earlier in Japan). Honda had the Insight about the same time, but it appears Toyota outpaced Honda with the hybrid models. What was happening 100 years earlier? Most sources will tell you there were about 8,000 cars in the US in 1900 and a little over 4,000 were built that year. Historic figures show that of those 4,000 or so cars, about 3,000 were steam or electric (steam took a slight advantage) and less than 1,000 cars produced that year used internal combustion engines. The reasons are myriad for less gasoline engines and too extensive for a post here. I’m working on a long article or short e-book on the history of electric cars in the early 1900s and I hope to go into more of that then.

Just as charging stations for full-electric cars are not very common today, gasoline was not readily available in 1900 everywhere, at least partly explaining why there were more steam and electric cars that year. The point is, preferences changed, gasoline became more available, and battery technology in the early 1900s simply could not allow an electric car to go more than about 20 miles, limiting their use largely to cities.

Technology changed for many reasons and the internal combustion engine won out. Technology is changing again, but probably not fast enough to meet the goals of Britain, France, and Norway. I believe we will always have the internal combustion engine in some form, but it is clear that the first steps are being taken to providing another realistic and reliable source of automotive power. One of the first electric conversions I saw other than the attempts by the Big 3 in the 1960s and early 1970s, was an Opel a man converted himself to run on about 20 standard car batteries located in the back seat and trunk areas. That was in 1979. That man, if still alive, may well think this thread is forty years too late.

Dansays:

August 7, 2017 12:03 am

Frank Csays:

August 7, 2017 9:37 am

Thanks, Dan. As a working writer, it’s nice to know someone appreciates something I write.

There are times when I hope change never happens, but that is unrealistic. History moves on and people innovate and bring change to us, sometimes nudging us into the future when we aren’t sure we want to go there.

I should note that the makers of gasoline powered cars have made huge strides. My first car, a hand-me-down 1963 Buick, got about 8 MPG, the next few cars did maybe slightly better. My first car with great mileage was a 1973 Vega (yes, I admit to owning a Vega, mine was a great example) that got 25 – 30 MPG around town and over 40 MPG on the highway (highest I remember was 44 MPG on a highway trip).

My current 2015 Subaru Legacy gets just about 30 MPG around town and can do over 40 MPG on highway trips. That’s incredible and we should be happy the manufacturers are doing so much better than they did 47 years ago when I started driving and buying gas.

Okay all innovators on this list — nudge me a little further into the future.

Dansays:

August 7, 2017 5:41 pm

Yeah, our family car in the 1970s was a 1930 Ford Model A pickup. Dad took the bus to work and Mom somehow schlepped us three kids around in it. We got a station wagon in the early 1980s and the Model A took on the role of a fun car for the next 30+ years. Today I’m more of a Willys Jeep guy. I also am weird in that I love driving stick shift (even in traffic). I love cars and trucks and things that go. I have to hang my head a bit as I think my Jeeps probably pollute more sitting in the garage than a modern car does in a month (or especially after a cold start).

That said, I have worked in the electric car industry for nearly a decade now, the last six years have been at a scientific non-profit that does research on the electric grid. Our team looks specifically at electric cars. I get it; change is hard. All I can say is that electric cars are awesome to drive (instant torque!), quiet, smooth, powerful… all those things we love about a V8 (or V12 if that’s your thing). EVs are also easy to live with. They charge most days at night and/or at work. Cars sit for 20+ hours each day, plenty of time to charge (granted there are a few exceptions like taxis or someone with a six hour commute or regional salesperson). Basically, if you can charge your smartphone, you can charge your electric car.

And contrary to what one might read, the grid will be fine. Utilities are investing billions of $ in it anyway. There is plenty of generation capacity. And automakers have announced 40+ new EVs that are coming out between now and 2021, many of which are crossovers and SUVs. The dual themes are 200+ mile ranges with mass-market pricing (average new car price is $34k). Heck, even Jeep is talking about electrifying its next generation Jeep Wrangler, with the announcement coming perhaps a year after this fall’s debut.

If anyone has never driven an electric car, I encourage them to go test-drive one early on a Sunday morning. Be first at a red light or on-ramp to a freeway… and floor it when the light turns green (obeying all traffic laws of course :). It’s awesome.

PHANTOM HAWKsays:

August 7, 2017 4:39 pm

It will be easier for the ‘countries’ of Britain, France and Norway to go all electric than it would be for the ‘country’ of the United States.

Granted, it is difficult to compare apples to oranges but ponder this:

Britain (United Kingdom) is about 57 per cent the size of California [a drive from the southern tip of England to the northern end of Scotland is similar to driving from Los Angeles to the Oregon border]…

…France is about the size of Texas with Texas covering about 8,022 square miles more than France…

…Norway is a long narrow country slightly larger than the state of New Mexico…

…SO…Britain, France, and Norway going all electric would be akin to the STATES of California, Texas, and New Mexico taking the same action here…but that still leaves a LOT of United States ‘real estate’ left over.

starsailingsays:

August 8, 2017 3:10 pm

Seems that personal electric transporatation is the wave of the future. Uncle Joe up at the old farm was ahead of the game in experimenting with electricity and horses. Grandpa’s horses Nellie and son Barney had a habit of kicking down part of the old farm fence circling around the barns and house. The two of them after breaking through sections of the old fence…. enjoyed walking into south Superior where the locals fed them as these two characters were notorius beggers! Local cattlemen gave info to Uncle Joe how to set up an electric fence. After sucessfully setting up an electric fence, shocking the two horses into submission to stop them….Barney learned how to open the back door to the house and walk into the hall where Grandma kept her breads. Uncle John got blamed for that and wanted the back door electrified. Uncle Joe put on a door lock..It worked..Barney the horse could not open the door. Barney learned that if he stood wth his head pressed against the door…no one could get out…until they fed him some bread….They gave in to the horses demands…and kept a wash pan in the hallway with pieces of bread to bribe Barney to allow them an exit. With the electric fence set up they simply had less visitors at the farm….people tired of parking outside the fence and putting a Y shaped stick under the wire to get into Barney’s compound! Uncle Joe finally sold the horses. Electricity then was set up to run the pump from the well to large water barrels. Here was the chance to have running water for the house…Grandpa said no. Electric lights in the house was all they needed and thought even that was too much in the 50s. Boy have we come along way since the late 50s. We bought Grandpa an electric refridgerator….he only plugged it in when he knew we were coming….the old Slovak thought that a refridgerator would give him a cold because the food was cold…..One foot in the past, one foot in the future…..That is still going on with many of us who resist the changes as science moves on…with us…or without us….

GeoffGsays:

October 24, 2017 12:21 pm

Here’s Why Electric Cars Are Useless in UK: Thoughts anyone?

Range, on the flat, just over 200 miles in summer. In winter lucky to get 100 miles. And in winter – no heating!

To suggest, as some ignorant people have, that electric cars ‘emit no CO2’ is absurd because the power stations that charge them do. To charge an electric vehicle (such as a Tesla), just once, requires the burning of 43 kilogram of coal.

A petrol car will require about 20 kilogram of petrol for the same distance. It follows that the electric car is emitting more than twice the CO2 of a petrol car.

Here are the sums:

Drax uses about 0.31 kilogram of coal per KWhr generated.

1 A Tesla battery is rated at 70 KWhr and fast charging is only 50% efficient. It will need 140 KWhr of electricity for a single charge; this works out as about 43 kilogram (0.31 × 140) of coal for a full charge.

The cost of electricity for the range available in a Tesla—200 miles in summer; 100 miles in winter—works out at £22.50. The petrol for 200 miles costs very little more and most of that cost is tax (currently about 60%) – about £28. In winter, for 100 miles, the petrol costs just £15.

During trials between 1927-30 of British steam locomotives a typical result was that, for a 500 ton express train, coal was consumed at the rate of 20 kg per mile.

2 Over 200 miles therefore 4000 kg was consumed. Scaling down to a 2 ton car: 4000÷250=16 kg coal. Even allowing for economies of scale, compare this to the 43 kg required by a Tesla.

Further issues
◦Battery cycling – the deterioration of the capacity of a lithium battery with charging – must be allowed for, costing about £3 per cycle.

3 Fire: even small lithium batteries are liable to catch ﬁre or even explode, releasing deadly toxins such as COS, HF, CO.

4 The huge dangers for occupants in event of an accident are obvious. Firehoses would only exacerbate the problem, causing electrocution of victims.

In winter, in severe conditions, electric cars become death traps. Firstly, the battery power halves every ten degree drop in temperature, so you are likely to get stuck in a snowstorm. Then there will be no heating in the car and a blizzard outside. You will freeze to death inside and, outside the car, you may die seeking help. This would not happen in a petrol car. A petrol car’s engine remains at full power down to the last drop of petrol and has plenty of heating. The electric car loses power almost immediately as the battery drains—and has no heating.

As most of the numpties, who think electric cars are viable, live in towns the above point doubtless passes them by, but the huge potential for trafﬁc clogging due to ‘dead’ electric vehicles has not been considered

6 . Nor has the issue of time to recharge. Currently an average petrol car takes about 5 minutes to ﬁll up with petrol, pay and depart. If an electric car takes a minimum of 75 minutes to recharge, the queues are going to be astronomical and the time wasted also astronomical.

The BBC tried to take an electric car from London to Edinburgh. It took more than three days, slower than a stagecoach. Strangely, people sometimes need to get to places quickly.

In case anyone thinks that there is a miracle battery just over the horizon, I can absolutely assure him or her that there is not. Battery technology is mature, and, to quote Mr David Hume, “Miracles do not happen.” (at least in technology). Just where is all this power to come from anyway? The Climate Change Act requires that by 2045 all gas heating be replaced by electric heating and all cars be electric.

Besides the stupidity of turning huge amounts of electricity back into heat, clearly no one in government has done the maths. The results are horrendous!

Were these to be run on biomass (woodchips) as 50% of Drax already is, Plus we will need to dig up every street to lay much bigger cables. (assuming only one car per household) all needed at peak domestic demand (5pm-10pm): 38kW × 17,000,000 = 646,000,000 kW ÷ 4,000,000 = 160 Drax sized power stations this would consume, annually, the total annual timber harvest of the USA!